[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3169-S3174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I hoped to come to the floor today to 
deliver a statement commending the Attorney General for her courageous 
decision to do the right thing and request the appointment of an 
independent counsel to investigate the fundraising violations in 
connection with the 1996 Presidential election. Regrettably, I am here 
today for a much different reason, to express disappointment and 
frustration with her refusal to even initiate an independent counsel's 
appointment.
  I appreciate the fact that the Attorney General is under enormous 
pressure from the White House, the Congress, the media, and the public, 
and that she is in a very unenviable position. I have respect and 
admiration for the Attorney General, but her refusal to do what the law 
permits and indeed requires her to do, frankly, does not engender 
respect or admiration in this instance.
  The Clinton administration and the Department of Justice is trying to 
cast her decision as a legal decision when, in fact, it is a decision 
within her power, and in my opinion, one which she is ethically obliged 
to make.
  As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which, pursuant to its 
statutory responsibilities requested 33 days ago that the Attorney 
General apply for the appointment of an independent counsel, I am 
compelled to respond to what can only be characterized as her 
inadequate response. In all candor, the substance of the Attorney 
General's report is vague, ambiguous at best, and at times, legally 
disingenuous. Especially in light of the fact that the committee 
requested she evaluate and report on ``all of the information before 
her,'' not just a few isolated allegations, the Attorney General's 
report also is incomplete, and in a rather selective way at that.
  A judge in a court of law would recognize the Attorney General's 
report as a defense brief, too clever by a half, carefully and 
zealously crafted to serve a client's interest. But the Attorney 
General's client here is not the President of the United States or her 
political party, it is the public. And the public's confidence that 
this investigation will be fair, as thorough, and as tough as any 
other, altogether untainted by political considerations, has not been 
fulfilled. I am afraid this client, the public, has been disserved.
  Given the evasiveness of the Attorney General's report, together with 
the delay in its transmission and the fact that as the Attorney General 
herself admits, ``much has been discovered,'' since the committee sent 
its letter, I have little choice but to conclude that much to my 
disappointment, the Attorney General did not receive our request with a 
mind fully open to doing what is plainly in our Nation's best 
interests.
  Before responding to the Attorney General's report in more detail, I 
feel I should briefly review what the independent statute provides for. 
An independent counsel can be triggered in one of two ways: Where there 
is sufficient information to investigate whether any person ``covered'' 
by the statute may have violated Federal law; or where an investigation 
of someone else who may have violated the law may result in a political 
or other conflict of interest. It is that simple.
  Let me talk, No. 1, about the mandatory trigger of that legislation. 
With respect to the first, the mandatory trigger where ``covered 
individuals'' are at issue, the Attorney General's report does little 
but make reference to legal ``factors that must be considered,'' and 
then repeatedly draws the summary conclusion that she does not have 
specific and credible evidence that a covered individual may have 
violated the law. Despite the White House's characterization of the 
Attorney General's decision as simply ``applying the law to the 
facts,'' there is virtually no application of the pertinent law to the 
pertinent facts actually before the public, let alone the facts before 
the Attorney General.
  While the statute requires the Attorney General to set forth the 
reasons for her decisions with respect to each matter before her, in my 
view she has utterly failed to do so here. To illustrate just a few 
examples of the inadequacy of the Attorney General's response, let me 
point out that she fails to specifically explain why an independent 
counsel is not warranted to further investigate the abundant evidence 
that covered individuals made extensive and deliberate use of Federal 
property and resources for campaign purposes including, for example, 
the Lincoln bedroom, and other areas of the White House, Air Force One, 
and a computer database costing the taxpayers $1.7 million.
  An authority higher than me and more independent than the Attorney 
General needs to determine the scope of the various laws implicated by 
this conduct and whether any of the laws were violated. The Attorney 
General's somewhat evasive approach to this entire matter is aptly 
illustrated by her argument that the use of the Government telephone 
does not constitute conversion of Government property. I am sure it 
does not. But as the Attorney General knows all too well, that is 
beside the point. The allegations of misuse of Government property are 
not based on phone calls.
  Mr. President, the Attorneys General's evasive approach to this 
entire matter is aptly illustrated by her argument that the use of the 
Government telephone does not constitute conversion of Government 
property. I am sure it does not. But, as the Attorney General knows all 
too well, that is beside the point: The allegations of misuse of 
Government property are not based on phone calls, but on the diversion 
of resources, such as the White House, Air Force One, and the White 
House database for campaign purposes, while phone solicitations were 
not alleged to have violated the conversion laws, but rather the 
prohibition on solicitations from Federal property. The conclusion I 
cannot help but draw here is that, however involved the Attorney 
General's career staff was in preparing this letter, in the end, it was 
her political advisers who had the last word.
  In short, the Attorneys General's carefully finessed and, in some 
cases, deliberately irrelevant legal arguments, combined with her 
summary

[[Page S3170]]

conclusions that there is no specific, credible evidence that a covered 
individual may have violated the law, hardly persuades one that an 
independent counsel is not mandated under the statute or, for that 
matter that the question has been given a genuinely thorough and candid 
evaluation.
  Perhaps more fundamental, though, is the Attorney General's 
altogether inadequate explanation as to why she will not request an 
independent counsel pursuant to the second statutory trigger --to avoid 
a conflict of interest. Here the test is quite simple: If the Attorney 
General is presented with a conflict of interest in investigating 
whether any individuals may have violated the law, she has the 
discretion to proceed with the appointment of an independent counsel. 
Try as the White House and the Attorney General might to cast this as a 
narrow and technical legal question, it is anything but that; it is an 
ethical one requiring sensitive judgment as to what is necessary to 
ensure the public's confidence that an investigation can be supervised 
by the Attorney General and completed in a thorough and impartial 
manner.
  In the past, the Attorney General has had a rather broad view of what 
is necessary to protect the public's confidence that an investigation 
is not compromised by any perception of a conflict of interest. In her 
Whitewater independent counsel request, for example, Attorney General 
Reno concluded that an independent counsel was required because her 
investigation would involve an investigation of James McDougal and 
``other individuals associated with the President and Mrs. Clinton'' 
would amount to a conflict of interest. It was that simple. In her 
referral of the Nussbaum perjury allegation to the independent counsel, 
the Attorney General concluded that a conflict of interest existed 
because the investigation ``will involve an inquiry into statements 
allegedly made by a former senior member of the White House staff.'' It 
was that simple. And, testifying before Congress in 1993, Ms. Reno 
stated that the Iran-Contra investigation ``could not have been 
conducted under the supervision of the Attorney General and concluded 
with any public confidence in its thoroughness or impartiality.'' It 
was that simple.
  Indeed, the Attorney General's testimony at that time thoroughly 
explained her rather strong view that even the slightest appearance of 
a conflict of interest should at all costs be avoided by the 
appointment of an independent counsel. It was that simple. She 
testified:

       There is an inherent conflict of interest whenever senior 
     Executive Branch officials are to be investigated by the 
     Department of Justice and its appointed head, the Attorney 
     General. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the 
     President. Recognition of this conflict does not belittle or 
     demean the impressive professionalism of the Department's 
     career prosecutors, nor does it question the integrity of the 
     Attorney General and his or her political appointees. 
     Instead, it recognizes the importance of public confidence in 
     our system of justice, and the destructive effect in a free 
     democracy of public cynicism.

  Attorney General Reno further testified:

       It is absolutely essential for the public to have 
     confidence in the system, and you cannot do that when there 
     is a conflict or an appearance of conflict in the person who 
     is, in effect, the chief prosecutor. . .. The Independent 
     Counsel Act was designed to avoid even the appearance of 
     impropriety in the consideration of allegations of misconduct 
     by high-level Executive Branch officials and to prevent. . . 
     the actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The Act thus 
     served as a vehicle to further the public's perception of 
     fairness and thoroughness in such matters and to avert even 
     the most subtle influences that may appear in an 
     investigation of highly placed Executive officials.

  Now, in her report to the Judiciary Committee, however, the Attorney 
General adopts a far narrower view of when an independent counsel is 
called for. Suddenly, the conflict of interest provision has become a 
complicated legal threshold which ``should be invoked only in certain 
narrow circumstances.'' That is on page 3 of the letter to me. Directly 
contradicting her own public statements that it is impossible for the 
public to have confidence in an investigation where there is a 
``conflict or an appearance of conflict in the person who is, in 
effect, the chief prosecutor,'' now the Attorney General claims that 
her discretion is limited only to situations where there is an actual 
conflict of interest. Quite frankly, the Attorney General's efforts to 
distance herself from her 1993 testimony require her to render a rather 
creative reading of her own testimony.
  Allow me to suggest that, to the extent an independent counsel was 
called for to ensure public confidence in an investigation of Mr. 
North, Mr. Nussbaum or Mr. McDougal and his associates, one certainly 
is called for here. If the Attorney General has adopted a new standard 
for evaluating when an independent counsel is necessary to ensure the 
public's confidence in an investigation, she should state as much and 
explain the basis for her new position.
  Although the Attorney General does not say as much in her letter, one 
can only surmise that her position is that First, there is no conflict 
of interest in continuing to investigate any of the individuals already 
under investigation, that is, Huang, Riady, Trie, Kanchanalak, John 
H.K. Lee, the Wiriadinatas, Charles DeQueljoe, Mark Middleton and 
Webster Hubbell, and second, that there is no basis for investigating 
whether other high-ranking officials may have violated the law. Since 
General Reno fails to explain her reasoning, let's step back for a 
moment and review some of the facts here to determine whether either of 
these apparent positions can really be defended.
  Take Mr. John Huang, the former Lippo executive whom the Riady's are 
widely reported to have bragged was placed in the Clinton 
Administration in exchange for generous donations by the Riady family, 
whose ties to the Clintons date back to Little Rock in the 1980's. See, 
for example, the New York Times, October 7, 1996. Recall that the Lippo 
Group, Huang's former employer, is connected to a far-reaching network 
of seriously questionable activities, directly implicating not just the 
Riadys and Huang, but the other individuals that figure in this 
troubling scandal, including Charlie Trie, Pauline Kanchanalak, Soraya 
Wiriadinata, C.J. Giroir, Mark Middleton, Mark Grobmeyer, Wang Jun, 
Charles DeQueljoe, and even Webster Hubbell. Since the Department is 
already investigating Huang, there plainly are sufficient grounds to 
investigate whether he may have violated federal law. In declining to 
invoke the discretionary conflict of interest trigger, the Attorney 
General's position, therefore, must be that there is no potential 
conflict of interest in her investigating Huang.
  Let's take a look at some of this. This is the ``Lippo Group, an 
Overview.''
  John Huang was a former Lippo executive in the United States. He had 
a $780,000 severance package before he went to work for the Government. 
By the way, before he went to work for the Government, for 5 months he 
had a security clearance given him by this administration. There is a 
question whether that was legal; a former Commerce official, multiple 
contacts with Lippo during that time; former DNC vice chairman; raised 
more than $3.4 million; $1.6 million is to be returned; and, he visited 
the White House more than 75 times.
  C.J. Giroir, a Lippo Joint Venture person, and a former Rose Law Firm 
attorney, met with James Riady, President Clinton, and Lindsey on Huang 
on his move to the DNC. He donated $25,000 to the DNC.
  Mark Middleton, former White House aide from Little Rock, met with 
James Riady and President Clinton; has Far East business interests; 
unlimited access to the White House after his departure.
  Charlie Trie, Little Rock restaurateur, had a $60,000 loan from 
Lippo; former Lippo executive; arranged with a former Lippo executive 
Antonio Pan, a Hong Kong dinner for Ron Brown; attempted to give more 
than $600,000 to the Clinton's legal expense trust; visited the White 
House at least 27 times.
  I can go through all of these other people.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the description of each 
of them be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      The Lippo Group--An Overview

     John Huang:
       Former top Lippo executive in U.S.
       $780,000 severance package

[[Page S3171]]

       Former Commerce Official-multiple contacts w/Lippo
       Former DNC Vice Chairman
       Raised more than $3.4 mill. (appx. $1.6 mill. returned)
       Visited White House more than 75 times

     Pauline Kanchanalak:
       Thai lobbyist who worked w/Huang when he was at Lippo
       Contributed $235,000 to DNC--all returned
       Frequent contacts with Huang
       Visited White House at least 26 times

     Charles DeQueljoe
       President of Lippo Securities in Jakarta
       Gave $70,000 to DNC
       Appointed to USTR advisory panel

     Webster Hubbell:
       Former Associate Attorney General
       Received $250,000 ``consulting fee'' from Lippo--won't say 
         why

     Wang Jun:
       Lippo joint ventures
       Chinese arms merchant
       Senior Executive at CITIC & COSTIND (Chinese gvt. entities)
       Attended White House coffee

     C.J. Giroir:
       Lippo Joint Ventures
       Former Rose Law Firm attorney
       Met with James Riady, Pres. Clinton, & Lindsey on Huang 
         move to DNC
       Donated $25,000 to DNC

     Mark Middleton:
       Former White House aide from Little Rock
       Met with James Riady & President Clinton
       Far East business interests
       Unlimited access to White House after departure

     Charlie Trie:
       Little Rock restauranteur
       $60,000 loan from Lippo
       Arranged (w/former Lippo exec. Antonio Pan) Hong Kong 
         dinner for Ron Brown
       Attempted to give more than $600,000 to Clinton legal 
         expense trust
       Visited White House at least 37 times

     Mark Grobmyer:
       Little Rock attorney--close friend of Pres. Clinton
       Consultant to Lippo
       Far East business interests
       Met with James Riady, Huang, & Pres. Clinton

     Soraya Wiriadinata:
       Daughter of Hashim Ning, former Lippo exec.
       Contributed $450,000 to DNC--all returned
       Has returned to Indonesia

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let's just take a look at the specific, 
credible evidence that has surfaced to date. Huang, who received a 
severance package from Lippo of $788,750 is reported to have:
  Received a top secret security clearance that could have allowed him 
to review classified intelligence documents, for 5 months while still 
employed by the Lippo Group, and before he joined the Commerce 
Department, all after a lax security check that was limited to his 
activities in the United States;
  Made at least 78 visits to the White House during his 18 months at 
the Commerce Department;
  Received 37 intelligence briefings on issues relating to China, 
Vietnam, and other matters of potential interest to Lippo;
  Made more than 70 calls to a Lippo-controlled bank; and received at 
least 70 calls; 39 classified, top-secret briefings; 30 phone 
conversations with Mark Middleton; 9 phone calls from Webster Hubbell; 
received at least 9 calls from the Chinese Embassy officials. He had at 
least three meetings with Chinese Government officials. He had a 1-year 
top secret clearance after leaving Commerce after he joined the 
Democratic National Committee. You wonder why national security 
interests were compromised and why information was given to the DNC.
  Like I say, he had 30-plus phone conversations with Mark Middleton or 
his associates. All of them had interests--at least I understand had 
interests--in the Far East.
  He had his transfer to the DNC orchestrated at a curious September 
13, 1995, Oval Office meeting attended by the President, Bruce Lindsey, 
James Riady, and Lippo joint venture partner and former Rose law 
partner, Joseph Giroir;
  Raised over $3.4 million while at the DNC--money used to reelect the 
President--retaining his top secret security clearance even though he 
was no longer working for the U.S. Government; and had $1.6 million of 
that $3.4 million used to reelect the President returned because of its 
suspicious sources.
  As we now know, John Huang has taken the fifth amendment, or has 
asserted the fifth amendment, while the Riadys have not only taken the 
fifth but they fled the country. Doesn't an investigation of Huang, so 
close to those who are covered by the statute, and the Riadys, so close 
to those who are covered by the statute who, like the McDougals, are 
political supporters and ``individuals associated with the 
President,''--to use the Attorney General's language of the past--
doesn't that raise a conflict of interest?
  It isn't just John Huang. Here are some examples of illegal funds 
raised by Huang: The Wiriadinatas, $450,000. They have returned to 
Indonesia. All funds are supposed to have been returned by the DNC. I 
am not sure that is true.
  Pauline Kanchanalak gave $253,000. She left the country. She is now 
in Thailand. Allegedly all of that $250,000 has been returned by the 
DNC. I am not so sure.
  Mr. Gandhi gave $250,000; testified he had no assets. How could he 
give $250,000? All of those funds are supposed to have been returned by 
the DNC. I am not so sure about that either.
  John H.K. Lee. He gave $250,000. He has disappeared. And those funds 
were supposed to be returned by the DNC. I am not so sure they have 
done it.
  Then Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple, $166,750 raised there. The temple 
residents, many of whom gave part of this money, were people who had 
taken a vow of poverty and had no money to give. Is there no illegality 
there; nothing to raise a possibility that something may be wrong here 
which is what the statute basically says? Supposedly $74,000 of that 
was returned by the DNC. You mean these things aren't wrong and 
illegal? You mean there is no conflict of interest here at all? If all 
you do is look at Huang, you have to say there is something wrong here.
  Then there is Mr. Charles Trie. Trie is a former Little Rock 
restaurateur, and reportedly a longtime friend of President Clinton who 
now runs an international trading company in Little Rock, AR. Mr. Trie 
has also asserted the fifth amendment and has even fled the country, 
along with these others.
  He is a business partner with Ng Lap Seng, a Chinese Government 
official. He received a $60,000 loan from the Lippo Group. He raised 
$645,000 in questionable funds which have been returned by the DNC. He 
raised $639,000 for the Clinton ``Legal Defense Fund,'' which was 
returned because the source of the money could not be identified; or 
the sources of the moneys could not be identified.
  He was during this period receiving wire transfers of very large sums 
from the Bank of China, owned by the Chinese Government.
  He visited the White House 37 times.
  He escorted Mr. Wang Jun, a Chinese arms merchant, to a White House 
coffee last year, which, when revealed, was described by the President 
as ``inappropriate.''
  He wrote the President in March 1996 to question his decision to 
deploy aircraft carriers to the Taiwan straits when the Chinese test-
fired missiles in Taiwan's direction, receiving a personal letter back 
from the President assuring Trie that the United States only wanted 
peace in the region; arranged a Hong Kong dinner for former Commerce 
Secretary Ron Brown; and, finally, was formally appointed to a 
Presidential Commission on Asian Trade in April 1996.
  To the extent there was a conflict of interest preventing public 
confidence in the Justice Department's investigation of Oliver North or 
James McDougal, certainly the same conflict exists with respect to an 
investigation of Huang, the Riadys, and Trie, not to mention the 
handful of other individuals who have taken or will assert the fifth 
amendment, fled the country, or done both, including Pauline 
Kanchanalak, Arief and Soraya Wiriadanata, John H.K. Lee, and Charles 
DeQueljoe. Frankly, there is even more of a conflict here.
  Moreover, it has become clear that there is specific, credible 
information providing sufficient grounds to investigate whether various 
high-ranking members of the administration may have known of, or 
conspired in, any of these apparent fundraising violations. Indeed, we 
now know from the Ickes files that the decision to transfer Huang from 
the Commerce Department to his fundraising role in the DNC was made at 
the September 13, 1995, Oval Office meeting which included not just 
Huang, James Riady, and Lippo Joint Venture Partner and former Rose Law

[[Page S3172]]

Partner Joseph Giroir, but Bruce Lindsey--who seems to pop up in all of 
these instances--and President Clinton himself, and that a participant 
at this Oval Office meeting reportedly recommended that the President 
``reassign Huang from his Government job to a political fund-raising 
job, where he could extract contributions for favors done and favors 
yet to come.'' The New York Times, March 5, 1997. Mr. Ickes' notes 
expressly indicate that Huang had specifically targeted ``overseas 
Chinese.'' And it has been reported how this decision to transfer Huang 
to the DNC, made at that September 13, 1995, Oval Office meeting, was 
directly linked to a plan, agreed to just days earlier by the 
President, Dick Morris, Harold Ickes, and others, to raise funds to 
wage a preemptive television ad campaign. See New York Times, April 14, 
1997. In short, isn't there sufficient information at least to 
investigate whether any of these top-level White House advisers were 
aware of or involved in Huang's and the Riady's far-reaching scheme to 
launder foreign funds into Democratic campaign coffers? Does the 
Attorney General expect the public to have confidence that she can 
thoroughly and dispassionately investigate individuals among the 
President's closest advisers without any conflict?
  Similarly, there is now a wealth of information documenting the 
extensive involvement from the President down through Mr. Ickes and 
other White House advisers in the plans, discussed earlier, to use the 
Lincoln bedroom, the White House, Air Force One, and the White House's 
computer database to further campaign purposes, and that campaign 
contributions were received at the White House. The Attorney General 
claims she is ``actively investigating'' whether laws were violated. 
Doesn't this investigation of these high-level White House advisers, 
even if not covered individuals, present a conflict at least as great 
as the conflict that apparently existed with regard to the 
investigations of Mr. North and Mr. McDougal?
  How can one say that there is no conflict when the FBI and White 
House are publicly squabbling over whether the White House should 
receive information about the investigation, and the Attorney General 
is smack in the middle of this squabble; when the White House falsely 
accuses the FBI of telling the National Security Council staff not to 
pass on information regarding Chinese attempts to illegally influence 
United States policymakers?
  Indeed, the very fact that the FBI, an agency within the Justice 
Department, refused to produce this information to the White House on 
the eve of Secretary Albright's visit to China clearly suggests that 
the investigation has already reached high up into the White House. It 
is curious, to say the least, that the Department of Justice leaked its 
decision to the press over the weekend, but it did not actually notify 
the Judiciary Committee of its decision until 6:30 last night, 2 days 
after this letter was due. Furthermore, the Acting Deputy Attorney 
General's assertion that the fact that both Judiciary Committees have 
made a formal request would emphatically not have any impact on their 
decision suggests to me that the Justice Department is in a defense 
mode.
  In short, I think there is little doubt there is at the very least a 
potential conflict of interest in having the Justice Department 
investigate these matters. The administration should not be 
investigating itself, it is just as simple as that, as long as we have 
an independent counsel statute. Simply claiming to defer to career 
Justice Department officials will not do. Would the public accept a 
Member of Congress not recusing himself or herself from a particular 
matter on which he or she had a major conflict of interest because 
staff recommended they not recuse themselves? Would the public accept a 
judge's refusal to recuse himself or herself in the face of a conflict 
because a clerk advised against it?
  The fact is that the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, has 
simply, on the basis of its own audit, already identified over $3 
million in improper contributions, violations of law, if you will. A 
significant portion of this illicit money has not even been returned 
yet, only confirming that this $3 million has already been spent, spent 
to reelect President Clinton.
  We have people calling for campaign finance reform on this floor. Why 
don't we enforce the campaign finance laws that are already on the 
books. That is what this is all about, in part, I have to tell you. 
Three million dollars in illegal funds, illicit funds spent to reelect 
the President, already spent. I wonder how Candidate Dole feels about 
that.
  The need for an independent counsel is not merely a matter of 
applying the law to the facts. The chorus we are now hearing from the 
President's press secretary and the Democratic apologists would seem to 
indicate that that is so when in fact it is not. In my opinion, 
Attorney General Reno was presented with an ethical question, a 
question ultimately of whether the public can have confidence in this 
investigation, whether the public can have confidence in this Justice 
Department, and whether the public can have confidence in the Clinton 
administration itself. Make no mistake about it. Attorney General 
Reno's decision yesterday was a significant political event, one which, 
much to my regret, will subject her to serious and I think justified 
criticism. This is not a happy day for the Department of Justice or for 
the public confidence in our system of justice. By continuing to permit 
what certainly appears to be a very serious conflict of interest, the 
Attorney General regrettably has, to use her own words, brought upon 
the Nation ``the destructive effect in a free democracy of public 
cynicism.''
  I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, that has already been 
granted.
  Mr. DURBIN. I was seeking recognition on the same subject. Senator 
Hagel, I believe, is on the way up to join me for 10 minutes. This is a 
separate request. Is it possible to do both?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  I would like to address the issue that the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee raised, and I am glad he stayed in the Chamber. I could not 
disagree with him more. If this really is a contest over the 
professionalism of Attorney General Janet Reno, I feel very confident 
to stand by her. On four separate occasions, Attorney General Reno has 
exercised the right to call for an independent counsel within the 
Clinton administration, three of those counsel investigating members 
appointed to the President's Cabinet and a fourth investigating the 
Whitewater controversy involving the Clinton family itself. It is very 
clear to me that Attorney General Reno is calling these as she sees 
them.

  Look at the situation that we now have before us. The Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, Mr. Gingrich, leaders of the Republican 
Party, all come forward and say that if Attorney General Reno does not 
ask for an independent counsel, they are going do drag her up to 
Capitol Hill, put her before the committee, maybe put her under oath, 
and demand to know why she has not called for an independent counsel.
  I suggest to my colleagues in the Senate the independent counsel 
statute itself is hanging on by a slender thread if we try to 
politicize this process and pressure the Attorney General into calling 
for an investigation where it is not warranted.
  Keep in mind the creation of this statute came from an era when 
President Nixon fired Archibald Cox as a special prosecutor, the so-
called Saturday Night Massacre. The independent counsel statute was 
created to try to put in place a third party or a dispassionate or a 
detached approach to investigations. And now, because those in the 
majority, the Republican Party, are dissatisfied that Attorney General 
Reno has not called for an independent counsel, you hear all sorts of 
comments about we are going to put the pressure on her; we are going to 
bring her up here and put her before a committee to answer all these 
questions.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield in just a moment. It just may be 
a fact that there is insufficient evidence to support the charges which 
the Senator

[[Page S3173]]

from Utah and other Republicans believe. Now, this Attorney General has 
been involved in this investigation for a long period of time with 50 
different FBI agents. If the newspaper reports are accurate, she has 
basically said that she will turn to her career prosecutors to make 
this call. I trust her judgment. I think we should trust her judgment. 
Applying political pressure at this point on the Attorney General is 
not in the best interests of a good investigation that may be necessary 
and may lead to the appointment of an independent counsel.
  I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. HATCH. I appreciate my colleague yielding.
  Let us just make it clear to my colleague that this chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee and Chairman Hyde over in the House, when many 
people were calling for us to send her a letter, delayed and delayed, 
giving the Attorney General a lot of time, nor have we been calling 
improperly for her to act in any way other than properly. But it will 
be interesting for people to know that we had scheduled our oversight 
hearing for May 20 for the Attorney General to come in and to be 
examined by the Judiciary Committee. I think for the information of 
everybody who is here, she has agreed to come earlier than that, within 
the next 3 weeks, probably in the first week of May, and at that time 
she will have to justify this decision.
  I think it is also safe to point out that I have been a very strong 
supporter of the Attorney General and still care for her a great deal. 
I do not like to see her subjected to this, but this is, to my 
knowledge, the first time that the letters from thoughtful chairmen and 
all the Republicans on both sides of the Judiciary Committee have been 
rejected and I think under much more stringent circumstances than 
independent counsel she has granted in the past.
  So I personally hope she can assert why she has not decided to at 
least conduct a preliminary investigation which would have triggered 
another 90 days to do this. I suggested to her and to the Justice 
Department that she do that.
  I also do not accept the--I am sorry; I will not take much longer. I 
do not accept her assertion that she is relying on professional staff 
members.
  Now, I have a lot of confidence in the professional staff members 
down there, but this involves a lot more than that and, frankly, 
involves just how this statute is going to be applied.
  When the time comes to reconsider this statute, I will be very 
interested in working with the distinguished Senator from Illinois and 
others to make sure that, if we are going to have a statute like this, 
let us have it so it works, and, frankly, I have qualms about having it 
at all. But since we do have it and since it does have these two main 
methods of triggering the call for an independent counsel and the 
appointment of an independent counsel, I have to say I am sadly 
disappointed that she has not chosen to do that under these 
circumstances. But I do understand my colleague at this hour rising to 
defend Attorney General Reno. I am not attacking her personally. I am 
just attacking what has been done here, and I think it should have been 
done before.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Utah. I want to say this much. 
If there has been any criticism of Attorney General Janet Reno in the 
last 6 months, it is that she is too independent. There was a question 
as to whether this President would even reappoint her because of her 
independence, the fact she had named four independent counsel. That has 
been the criticism of Attorney General Reno. She calls them as she sees 
them. She is a professional.
  She has made a decision today which the Republicans are unhappy with; 
they wanted an independent counsel named in this case. But when she 
named four previous independent counsel, they cheered--good judgment, 
good work. Now, when she has decided not to call for one, they want to 
bring her up to Capitol Hill, put her before the committee, start 
asking questions: Why won't you bend to this pressure? I hope she does 
not. I hope she calls it based on the evidence.

  On a show that I was on last night, one of my colleagues on the 
Republican side said, ``Hasn't there been enough time here? Shouldn't 
she call for an independent counsel?''
  This is not about time. This is about evidence, credible witnesses. 
If they do not come forward with the evidence and with the testimony to 
justify an independent counsel, I hope Attorney General Reno will not 
bow to pressure here. I hope she will stand up for what she believes 
in. And as a Democrat, I am prepared to accept her decision. I believe 
she is professional enough that we can stand behind her. But we 
jeopardize the future of this statute, and I think we ought to think 
twice about it, by putting this kind of public pressure on the Attorney 
General trying to push her in one political direction or the other.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Does the Senator from Illinois 
yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I had asked for an additional 10 minutes 
on another topic with the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for just 90 seconds?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I would like to say this in response. I just spent 30 
minutes laying out some of the evidence that I think clearly shows the 
grounds for further investigation. The question is how can the Attorney 
General continue this investigation within the Department without a 
conflict of interest? I do not think she can. Again, I will cite her 
testimony back in 1993.
  She had a strong view that even the slightest appearance of a 
conflict of interests should, at all costs, be avoided by the 
independent counsel. She said this:
       . . . there is an inherent conflict of interest whenever 
     senior Executive Branch officials are to be investigated by 
     the Department of Justice and its appointed head, the 
     Attorney General. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure 
     of the President. Recognition of this conflict does not 
     belittle or demean the impressive professionalism of the 
     Department's career prosecutors, nor does it question the 
     integrity of the Attorney General and his or her political 
     appointees. Instead, it recognizes the importance of public 
     confidence in our system of justice, and the destructive 
     effect in a free democracy of public cynicism.

  She further testified that:

       It is absolutely essential for the public to have 
     confidence in the system and you cannot do that when there is 
     conflict or an appearance of conflict in the person who is, 
     in effect, the chief prosecutor. . . . The Independent 
     Counsel Act as designed to avoid even the appearance of 
     impropriety in the consideration of allegations of misconduct 
     by high-level Executive Branch officials and to prevent . . . 
     the actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The Act thus 
     served as a vehicle to further the public's perception of 
     fairness and thoroughness in such matters, and to avert even 
     the most subtle influences that may appear in an 
     investigation of highly-placed Executive officials.

  I really believe that the case has been made here. And, although I 
still have very fond feelings toward the Attorney General, I think she 
has made a tragic error. And I believe that this is not going to end 
it. In the end, I think we would have been a lot farther down the road 
had she applied for the appointment of an independent counsel.
  Be that as it may, these remarks had to be made because they are 
important. Either we are going to have a statute or we are not. As I 
have said, I have never been a strong supporter of this statute. But it 
is there and it has been used in prior administrations. It has been 
used in this administration. And this case, it seems to me, is even 
more overwhelming than some of the prior cases where it has been used.
  I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, who has time at this moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the remaining 
time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me just say in closing, on this 
particular issue, before I move to the other with Senator Hagel, this 
is a matter of the Attorney General's discretion. Whether that Attorney 
General is a Democrat or a Republican, under this statute the Attorney 
General is to gather the evidence, listen to the testimony, and decide 
whether or not that evidence and testimony crosses a threshold to 
suggest that a crime has been committed, either by a covered person in 
the administration or a Member of Congress, or creating a conflict of 
interest between the administration and the investigation.

[[Page S3174]]

  If I listened and heard correctly, the Senator from Utah questions 
whether or not an Attorney General, appointed by a President, can 
exercise appropriate discretion when there has been a suggestion that 
that President or his Cabinet be investigated.
  What the Senator from Utah calls into question is more than the 
judgment of any specific Attorney General. He calls into question the 
very existence of the statute. I think there are many deficiencies in 
this statute. I think we should address those, and perhaps reauthorize 
it with some changes. Among those changes, I might add, is that if an 
independent counsel is to be appointed, that independent counsel be 
truly independent.
  In the history of this statute, 15 independent counsels have been 
named: 11 Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 Democrats. This process has 
been loaded to appoint Republican independent counsels. And how? 
Because the three judges who make the appointment, named by the Chief 
Justice, have created a daisy chain, where they are appointed for 2 
years as the statute calls for and then reappointed for another 2 
years. They keep coming back, over and over and over again, the same 
people, making the same judgments about the appointment of independent 
counsel.
  I think this statute needs to be addressed. But, if we are going to 
attack this Attorney General because she has to exercise her 
discretion, believe me that is what the statute says that she must do. 
She must look at that evidence, decide whether it is credible, and 
decide whether to go forward. As unhappy as the Republicans may be with 
this decision by the Attorney General, I trust her judgment. I trust 
her professional judgment. If she says at this moment it is not 
warranted, I think she is right. I will stand by it.
  Should she change her mind at some later date, I will accept that 
decision, too. But to call her up here and put her under pressure 
because she has made that decision is a serious, serious mistake.
  At this point I believe there has been a unanimous-consent request 
for 10 minutes for Senator Hagel and myself to address another issue, 
is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes remaining of that 
time.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin and Mr. Hagel pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 575 are located in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this Senator inquires of the order of 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is scheduled to recess absent a 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may proceed as in 
morning business for no more than 6 to 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________